Wednesday, February 15, 2017

A comment on Tolerance

Tonight's comment brought to
you by this guy
So in response to my recent post on the Troth's finally forcing any remaining folkish Asatruar out of their midst, Carl Bonebright (who, judging from his FaceBook account, is apparently an anarchist, Norse Neopagan, feminist, TDS* sufferer, antifa supporter, and part-time Abraham Lincoln reenactor) assayed the following comment. I thought it was worth replying in a post of its own:
After the metric ton of whining about "maintaining frith" that has been a deluge from the Folkish camps for the last couple years, an oath to maintain frith is met with "But muh Folkish!"
Really?
Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of "tolerance" that plays well in memes, but doesn't fit reality. See here: https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1af7007d6376#.itrbml79z
Not quite right, on several levels, Carl.

First off, the use of the word "frith" is incorrect. Fortunately, the Troth fixed their statement upon having that (somewhat embarrassingly) pointed out to them. So let's move past your first point, because it's not relevant and never was. They don't want frith (or whatever they want to call it) with people who don't agree with them; they want people who disagree with them to shut up and leave.

But as for "tolerance," I'm not the one who ever claimed to be a champion of tolerance, or who ever asked for it from you Norse Neopagans, for that matter. It's always people like you, and the Troth, who go spouting off how "tolerant" they are. So let's take that one off the table too, because you're just making it up.

That leaves us with your link, which is very interesting and appreciated, because it makes my point brilliantly. The whole argument in that article you link to is that tolerance does not extend to tolerating physical violence:
"If one side has breached another’s rights, the injured party is no longer bound to respect the treaty rights of their assailant — and their response is not an identical violation of the rules, even if it looks superficially similar to the original breach."
But what "right" is being injured by the fact that Folkish Asatruar** say they only want to worship with people who agree with the premise that "people should worship the gods of their ancestors?"

I mean, it's not like we folkish go around trying to disrupt Norse Neopagan groups, or gatherings, or rituals, or meetings, or whatever. We don't break up Troth blots that happen to have a black or hispanic present, saying "THIS SHALL NOT STAND!" We don't do any of that. We don't care what you do.

No, all we say is "we want to blot with people who think the same way we do." You know, folkish people.

How, exactly, is that harassment? How does that threaten anyone's safety, or their freedom to worship whatever they want to worship? How does my thinking "gee, that guy's pretty silly for wanting to worship my ancestors," or "you go worship with those Trothers over there, but please let me worship over here with my own folk" harm anyone?

He thinks this is literally the same as saying "we don't want
you in our ritual; go do ritual with those guys over there."
Does it make them feel bad? Feel excluded? Is that the "harm" you're talking about? Are you actually putting "they won't let me stand next to them when they pray to Odin; they insist I have to stand over here with this other group of people whom I actually like better" on the same moral level as "you're a non-Aryan, so we're going to put you in a camp and either work you to death as a slave laborer or just kill you with poison gas"????

Is your moral compass so twisted, is your world view so ingrained with the lie that "folkish = racist = genocidal maniac" that you can't see that wanting to worship with people who believe as you do is NOT the same as wanting to kill all those people with whom you disagree?

Do you not realize that it is precisely the people on *your* side of the argument that want to do those things to people with whom *you* disagree that you you accuse us of wanting to do? As far as I know, no folkish group has ever tried to disrupt a Norse Neopagan gathering, never tried to get a venue to turn them away, never tried to doxx their members, physically intimidate them, or anything else of the sort.

But your side has.

So don't talk to me about the moral superiority of your side, Carl. Everything you claim we want to do is stuff that your side is actually doing. Classic projection. All we want to do is worship with people who believe like we do. We've never tried to stop anyone else, other than to say "sorry, please go over there, because we want to worship with whom we want to worship." That's not stopping anyone from worshiping, and we couldn't stop them even if we wanted to.

It's not saying "you can't worship the Aesir." It's saying "you can't worship the Aesir with us." Can you even see the difference?

If you think that not being invited to an AFA event is somehow preventing anyone from worshiping Odin and Thor, you're just deluded. We just think they're wrong, and don't want them around (and news flash; "them" includes "you;" it's about what you believe, not what you are). Folkish = okay, uni = not okay.

Capice?

_____

* Trump Derangement Syndrome
** The only real Asatruar out there, and the original type in America, but that's something I covered a while ago elsewhere on the blog. Oh, no! Maybe my saying they're not really Asatruar is somehow psychically preventing from calling themselves that! Gods, what power the SJW's give over us.

2 comments:

  1. You excel at putting words in my mouth from your blog, coward. Clearly I overestimated your maturity. You could just admit you're jealous of a real beard instead of this sad love note.
    Don't lecture me about moral superiority while writing an ad hominem hit piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coward? A Coward would never have approved your rather limited response in the first place. So, one more factual error on your part. We'll add it to the list.

      But "ad hominem hit piece"? I take issue with that, sir. While it is true I made a light-hearted jab at your rubbish beard (because unlike you, apparently, I wanted to lighten the mood with some good-natured jibing), the vast majority of my post was aimed squarely at the arguments you made and supported with that link you gave.

      None of which, I note, you bother to address. I'm not all that surprised, considering there really isn't any reasonable response. Your argument, like your beard, is rubbish. (See what I did there?) You're drawing equivalencies where none can possibly exist, and are attempting to justify outright discrimination based on those false equivalencies.

      But putting words in your mouth? Stuff and nonsense. Here's what you're doing:

      A: Here's an article that explains my position on this issue.
      B: [Quotes from article]
      A: You're putting words in my mouth.

      So... no. You don't want to take responsibility for the arguments in an online article? Don't reference it as supportive of your argument. C'mon.

      But I do appreciate your ongoing engagement, which is quite more than many on your side seem prepared to do. But in this case, I think an actual response to the counter-arguments I raised (primarily, but not exclusively, that the folkish position doesn't abridge the rights of others, because the folkish cannot by definition prevent someone from worshiping whatever god(s) they want to), rather than your rather petulant objection to my light-hearted jibes, might have been in order.

      Honestly, if you can't take that level of banter, you might want to consider cancelling your internet access. The rough and tumble of blog comments seems to be a bit much for you. Off to your safe space.

      Delete